There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Bluefalcon ,

Abolish the DEA, legalize all drugs, and put education/treatment programs in place to help people. Repair lives instead of destroying them. That should always be the goal.

NGC2346 , (edited )

They are now seeing how profitable the plant is, so they want to change the narrative. Don’t be fooled.

Edit: The reclassification will just put the plant in its due place, before its reputation was tarnished by the war on drugs.

DrSleepless ,

True, but I still want it reclassified

MaxVoltage ,
@MaxVoltage@lemmy.world avatar

Bro they will never let homies grow at home tho opium i mean

Wogi ,

A little too much refined weed isn’t going to kill you.

aceshigh ,
@aceshigh@lemmy.world avatar

They’re just trying to not only have it be a cash business. The banks want a portion of that monies.

Everythingispenguins , (edited )

Hey if this happens does anyone know how this will affect drug testing for work? Employers are private entities obviously but a lot only drug test due to federal regulation or contract compliance.

Kit ,

I assume that companies would still drug test for weed. It’s still a controlled substance with reclassification. They may be less likely to do so, but this wouldn’t stop it from occurring.

This is why it’s also important to ensure doctors can prescribed weed as a medicine. It forces companies to accept weed as a medical accommodation for most positions.

NegativeInf ,

Even so, but for most non critical jobs, it really shouldn’t be a problem if an employee smokes off the clock or not. They don’t say shit when every office worker is sloshed from 5:30 onward.

Bitflip ,

Criminalization is a multi-million dollar industry and greed is more powerful than our laws.

douglasg14b ,
@douglasg14b@lemmy.world avatar

Million? My friend, it’s a 7.4 BILLION dollar industry.

Sagifurius ,

It’s really bizarre the cops and bureaucrats apparently get to decide law to this extent.

Space_Racer ,
@Space_Racer@lemm.ee avatar

It has some trade-offs, the same rules allow the DEA and ATF to make rules but also allows things like the EPA to function. It really is a double edged sword.

Sagifurius ,

Yeah the main trade off is federal organizations have become so determinate that pretty soon, and it’s come close already, they’re just gonna support a dictator enable their internal politics.

prole , (edited )

This just isn’t true. Federal agencies are made up of regular people who work a regular job for mediocre pay, and a dictator is much more likely to do away with that job (or even worse, as we’ve seen historically. Purges aren’t just a fun way of saying “vacation”).

Republicans have even said in the recent past (Rick Perry comes to mind, but pretty sure Trump has said similar) that they will do away with major regulatory agencies if they’re elected (such as FDA, EPA, DOE, etc). What do you think happens to all of those workers when a Republican decides to shut down their agency? They’re out of a job.

So no, they don’t support it. They just don’t really have any say in it either way.

Sagifurius ,

You’ve never talked to a cop.

DrPop ,

Cops make up s very small percentage of government employees.

Sagifurius ,

Doesn’t matter, that was just an example. People get “institutionalized” in both government and corporate positions, the difference is the corporate ones have little power over the general public, next thing you know you have government representatives running around trying to make peoples lives hell for making clotted cream. If that sounds like a weird example, it is, definitely.

prole ,

I don’t give a fuck about cops.

The federal government is the largest employer in the US. What % of those do you think are cops?

phoneymouse ,

Your comparison is EPA, an agency of environmental subject matter experts, so for drugs, which is a health issue, it should be a health agency. DEA is law enforcement. It’s letting cops decide policy when it should be an agency of subject matter experts writing evidenced-based policy.

Space_Racer ,
@Space_Racer@lemm.ee avatar

I’m just saying it’s the same rules that give them the power to decide on enforcement. Also all of them are enforcement agencies. The EPA does have federal agents that have the power to arrest. The EPA decided to have less cops in their agency because it is not the nature of their agency. The DEA and ATF decided to have more cops in their agencies because it is the nature of their agency.

NegativeInf ,

Sounds like a problem with their specific implementations rather than the rules that allow them to exist. I wonder if competent legislation could fix that.

prole ,

Well get used to it as the Supreme Court has begun to lay down the precedent needed to completely do away with Chevron deference.

In other words, they’re doing away with the authority that gives federal regulatory agencies their purview to set regulations. You know, the public servants who have dedicated their lives/educations/careers/etc. to a field of study?

They’re replacing those decisions with ones made by judges and politicians.

I much prefer “bureaucrats” (literally just another word for those public servants) make those decisions rather than billionaires and politicians.

fne8w2ah ,

That’s precisely what experts are for.

prole ,

Yes. The bureaucrats are the experts. They’re the same people.

Delta_V ,

Not necessarily. Its just about impossible to fire someone from a government job, even if they’ve demonstrated incompetence and lack of expertise.

DrPop ,

I’ve seen plenty walked out the door in my days off working my field in government. At the bargaining level it is hard for an employee to be fired but not impossible and it takes repeat offenses but this is just my own experience in my field. The worst that could happen is someone gets is someone gets information they were not suppose to (UNAX). They handle that on a case by case basis. You don’t want a worker that can be fired at the drop of a hat when working for the public.

Sagifurius ,

good. Enforcement should not decide law. that is a clear conflict of interest, in their favor. For an extreme example, you absolutely don’t want a police officer deciding citizen’s rights.

douglasg14b ,
@douglasg14b@lemmy.world avatar

So you’re okay with a politician with no knowledge, process, expectations, or regulation in the area in question making things like medical decisions based only on political lines for you instead of a bureaucracy of beurocrats and medical professionals who dedicate their lives and careers to solving these problems?

How does this make any sense?

These organizations literally formed because politicians are incompetent towards these problems, and gathering of experts are required to evaluate, developer effective process, and then solve for them.

Sagifurius ,

Damn that’s a big strawman

prole ,

It’s not a strawman, it’s literally what is happening in the US right now. It’s called Regulatory Capture.

frezik ,

No, that’s exactly what dropping Chevron would mean. Judges get to step in on any decision by a regulatory body. Right now, they are mostly barred from doing so beyond making sure procedure was followed and is within their purview.

prole ,

I’m not sure I understand. Do you mind explaining your position?

frezik ,

I’m guessing they mean the DEA shouldn’t both decide drug classification and enforce those same classifications.

That can be fixed by other means, though, such as by giving the FDA classification rights that the DEA then enforces. Killing Chevron deference would only make things worse; the court now gets to decide and enforce.

The flip side is that more progressive judges can also second guess decisions. EPA says that PFAS is fine and we’re not going to regulate it? The court could step in on that. FCC says net neutrality doesn’t need to exist? The court could step in on that.

Killing Chevron only makes sense for conservatives if they think they will own the courts indefinitely. They probably thought they would during the Trump Administration, but he lost the last election, and the Supreme Court massively overstepped with abortion rights and caused their side a whole bunch of new problems. They may not be so sure of their ability to capture the judicial system as they were a few years back. A lot depends on how the next election pans out.

someguy3 ,

So why do they have to ask? Ok these are health officials, couldn’t Congress tell them to?

pete_the_cat ,

It may be finally happening!

The whole scheduling system is ridiculous, Schedule 1 is for drugs with no medicinal usage and high addiction potential, which isn’t true for a lot of them. LSD has therapeutic uses (I’ve used it myself) and Heroin, while addictive, definitely has medicinal usage as a strong pain killer. IIRC Cocaine is Schedule 2.

EmpathicVagrant ,

“It may finally be happening!”

I’ve heard that every election year since 2008, so I won’t expect to see it until several birthdays from now

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

In how many of those election years had the DHHS finally asked the DEA to reclassify…?

frezik ,

I’ve noticed this vein of irrational cynicism before. Bad things happen, and therefore bad things will keep happening. I told people for years that it was already too late for Disney to extend copyright yet again; it takes too long to get anything through Congress. This Congress can barely elect a Speaker, but people were still arguing there’d be a last minute extension in the final weeks of 2023.

Point is, cynicism shouldn’t replace clear thinking.

EmpathicVagrant ,

That’s valid, I just don’t know any world other than one manipulated for political gain or profit so I’m solidly in the ‘that would be amazing but I doubt it’ camp. I’d love to be wrong though.

prole ,

Maybe not DHHS, but I remember countless articles about X agency recommending it, and nothing ever changed.

I’m not agreeing with that person, I’m slightly optimistic about this time, but I’m not going to get my hopes up.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Serious question- with all the alternatives available today, does heroin still have medical uses?

I’m 100% against the moronic drug war, so this is a tangent from the point, I’m just curious.

13esq ,

I don’t think anyone uses heroin medicinally anymore, but there are many similar opioids that are uses all the time.

prole ,

Nope. I don’t think there’s any reason why heroin should even be manufactured these days. If you’re going to make painkillers from opium, they’ve got a million better options at this point.

That said, unfortunately we have people addicted to it, and I would rather see them getting high safely, on clean drugs, in a safe location than having them get hooked on fentanyl and end up dying of an overdose under a bridge. So it does make sense to continue manufacturing it for that. Otherwise, black markets will fill in the gap.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t disagree with your reasoning at all. I was just curious about whether or not it also had a legitimate medical use.

CADmonkey ,

Don’t they more or less give heroin to people recovering from surgeries?

13esq ,

You might be thinking of morphine. They’re both opioids but they are distinct.

Corkyskog ,

They do use diamorphine (heroin) in other countries for various pain stuff. It’s uncommon, but it’s used in the UK for example.

Corkyskog ,

They do use diamorphine (heroin) in other countries for various pain stuff. It’s uncommon, but it’s used in the UK for example.

Corkyskog ,

They do use diamorphine (heroin) in other countries for various pain stuff. It’s uncommon, but it’s used in the UK somewhat frequently for example. (They even used to give it out for maintenance of Opiate addiction… lol, Not sure if they still do.)

MaxPow3r11 ,

Alcohol is unscheduled.

Cannabis is schedule 1.

These should be reversed to reflect the actual truth of things.

piecat ,

Ethanol does have medical uses. It’s the only way to stop poisonings from things like antifreeze, methanol, to name a few

AllonzeeLV ,

Oh wow, I guess William Randolph Hearst’s ghost must have finally run out of bribe money.

TWeaK ,

Can the DEA even reclassify drugs? All the DEA could do, in theory, is decriminalise and not prosecute - which they’re kind of doing already.

It’s up to Congress to write laws. Maybe the FDA, in this case.

gregorum , (edited )

The FDA and HHS have already made their recommendations to reschedule. Now the DEA gets to weigh in, then there’s a period for public comment. After that, IIRC, the FDA makes a final decision. The current recommendation is to Schedule III from Schedule I.

but that’s just for rescheduling on a federal level.

edit: correction-- it’s the DEA who makes the ultimate decision.

TWeaK ,

Thanks, that’s a good overview.

Schedule III is still too harsh, imo, though.

gregorum ,

agreed. Schedule IV or descheduling altogether would be most fitting. The fact that it’s a legitimate medication for many conditions and is still the subject of a great deal of research muddies the waters a bit, however.

Ranvier , (edited )

Unfortunately the DEA is the agency that makes the final decision. I have less faith in them to do the right thing on this than the FDA. Though the new head Biden appointed specifically called for a review of the scheduling, which could be a signal the DEA is receptive to dropping it. Schedule I for marijuana is a joke. I mean, you could make an argument caffeine is more dangerous. Even just lowering it to another level could make a big difference in the states it’s legal.

gregorum ,

Unfortunately the DEA is the agency that makes the final decision.

ok, i just looked into this, and you’re correct. my mistake.

Regarding their stance… i think this could go either way, and it’s most likely to be a bit of a compromise, leaning into the FDA and HHS recommendation, as, historically, they’ve kid of ridden the fence on the issue, often giving a token, “we enforce the law,” type of answer when questioned about their stance on the subject.

frezik ,

Yes, the DEA has the final say. Congress defers its rule making ability to agencies all the time, and it’s codified in court under the Chevron Doctrine (something the current right wing faction would like to get rid of).

The FDA makes its recommendations and the DEA decides. This is the one part that makes me nervous; the DEA wants to keep that sweet War on Drugs budgeting going. But I don’t think they’ll be stubborn about it this time. Too much public opinion against them, including a chunk of Republicans.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

DEA: Ok, it’s reclassified.

Indiana: Cool. We’ll make it 5 years in prison for smoking a joint.

I hate this state.

AdolfSchmitler ,

Wisconsin is gonna be the last state to legalize because we’re the Alabama of the fucking north. Your 5th DUI probably has lesser consequences than getting caught holding here.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You’re the Alabama of the north? Have you ever heard the Hoosier accent? And both Dan Quayle and Mike Pence come from Indiana. Also, we once tried to legislate pi. And not to the correct value of pi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill

AdolfSchmitler ,

Lol fair points, tho we do have quite an accent up here dontchyaknow? But I guess you have Gary, IN too and all we have is a bunch of serial killers.

frezik ,

Wisconsin is a purple state that’s gerrymandered to hell. Zero movement on any progressive agenda for over a decade. The progressives here have gotten dejected and tend to overexagerate the problem.

Not that it’s all great. It’s just not “Wississippi”.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Whereas Indiana is sometimes rightfully nicknamed ‘The Middle Finger of the South.’

mosiacmango ,

Yall might have something akin to fair elections this year. Maybe.

Your purple state may actually be purple soon.

prole ,

Meanwhile, yesterday I walked into a store and bought THC vape cartridges legally. There was even an armed cop in there for security. I said hi to him on the way in.

I know “just move” isn’t a real solution, but man I would never live in a state that isn’t solid blue ever again. After growing up in a “purple” area of a red-leaning state, the difference is pretty insane.

negativenull OP ,

The states surrounding Indiana:
https://i.imgflip.com/8cc1wh.jpg

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I go to Illinois to get weed. Most of the cars in the parking lots are from Indiana. I wish I was closer to Michigan. Their weed is super cheap and they don’t have a limit for out-of-state purchase quantities like Illinois.

PriorityMotif ,
@PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

Let me just say, the Indiana license plate design makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Second, every car I see with an Indiana license plate is a giant pile of shit for some reason.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

We used to have an awesome license plate.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0324a952-1bff-49dc-85cc-ba38fed18746.png

That was the license plate of my childhood.

PriorityMotif ,
@PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

That’s pretty rad. I don’t know why they changed it to the current abomination.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

This one wasn’t too bad except we don’t grow much amber-colored grain in Indiana. We mostly grow corn. So it’s stupid.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db46023a-76a6-4ca7-b73f-005b0e939bcd.png

rabiddolphin ,
@rabiddolphin@lemmy.world avatar

Corn is a grain

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

But it isn’t amber, is it?

bamboo ,

Field corn turns amber when it’s ready to harvest

PopMyCop ,

Lol, the enshittification of license plates continues. My state used to have these awesome silhouettes of some of its history on the edges. Now? Just plain fucking two colors, no embellishments at all.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

I expect reclassification to happen just before the election.

rabiddolphin ,
@rabiddolphin@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah and right after they send the $2000 for electing Warnock

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/85df9883-aad8-4462-b0b4-2b96ded7e9e9.jpeg

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You would have had Herschel Walker? That drooling imbecile?

prole ,

Seems like good advertising to me.

Nougat ,

US health officials ask DEA to jeopardize their own jobs

BreakDecks ,

The DEA has basically ignored cannabis for years now. Opioids will keep them employed, don’t worry.

TWeaK ,

Exactly. They’re basically asking them to do something the DEA can’t do - change the law. What the DEA can do is prioritise what they’re prosecuting and decriminalise weed, which they more or less unofficially have been doing for a few years now.

RedAggroBest ,

The DEA controls scheduling though? So they’re asking them to do exactly what they’re able to

treefrog ,

If we’re actually following the scheduling guidelines, can we do psychedelics next?

SnotFlickerman ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I mean, they probably will. They’ve got to offer fucking something other than “I’m not a literal fascist who will black bag and torture you like Trump.” It’s not particularly effective to be like “I know your lives are fucking terrible out there, but I’m not gonna do a god damned thing to really improve them, because why should I have to, my opponent is fucking bonkers and I’m going to hold him over your head abusively, dangling him as a threat that you’ll be punished under unless you vote for me.”

Far easier to threaten us with the spectre of fascism than actually fucking do anything to improve things or, you know, stop fascism. However, enough folks in the Democratic party are waking up to the public not actually responding well to this abuse, and see that they’re enabling fascism to be able to lean on it as a danger that only they can thwart. So they gotta start giving something, and drugs are an easy one.

toasteecup ,

I forgot the exact details but that’s slowly becoming a reality in the states. I think the FDA was re reviewing mushrooms for use fighting against PTSD

Drusas ,

It's already available in Oregon.

toasteecup ,

DC too but I remember it being some federal level movement

prole ,

Yeah, and cannabis has numerous well known and well studied medical applications. Has been common knowledge for years. And yet…

treefrog , (edited )

Mushrooms are in phase three trials and have been for awhile. That doesn’t help a lot of other plants that were misclassified under Nixon, several of them used in religious contexts such as Ayahuasca (DMT) and Peyote (mescaline).

Essentially, all of these medicines need to be reviewed because scheduling was based on political motivations and not any understanding of their pharmacology. They were being used as medicine by medical doctors (psychiatrists) when Nixon scheduled them. This was a great injustice to anyone with mental health issues and direct violence towards groups already using psychedelics (rather medicinally, spiritually, or recreationally). And this injustice and violence continues to this day.

We all know Nixon was a crook and that the drug war is a crock of shit. Yet, we continue locking people up and denying access to medicine (or spiritual food depending on your outlook) because we don’t like the substances people choose to have a relationship with. We’re complicit in his violence everyday we let it continue as though it’s justice.

Anyway, I hope the DEA reschedules cannabis. It would be a great first step. But we have to recognize that it’s just one step and not the end goal. The drug war needs to end. And we can’t be content with only weed being looked at.

quams69 ,

Decriminalize drugs and defund the DEA 👍

MaxPow3r11 ,

Abolish the DEA.

Deschedule cannabis & mushrooms.

nobleshift ,
@nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    flooppoolf ,

    This only works if your country has good social care… what you’re advocating for is an exacerbation of addiction and mental health crises across the US.

    Lifecoach5000 ,

    We need to focus and do better on harm reduction before we go full blast so I agree with you 💯

    smooth_tea , (edited )

    The idea that legalization or something similar would lead to more issues is completely unfounded and rests on the idea that the approach we take right now solves anything and stops people from using drugs. You legalize drugs to IMPROVE the situation, not to make it worse. The repressive approach towards drugs has made all drug issues worse, it is not some sort of dam that is holding back the tide of run-away drug problems, we already have that while they are all illegal.

    People by and large do not end up with mental health issues because of drug use, they have mental health issues, or medical issues, or financial issues, which leads them towards drug use, which, with our current approach towards them, puts them into a downwards spiral. A more sane approach centered around harm reduction would be a means to help people in those situations, instead of turning people, who often ended up in that situation through nothing more than an accident or medical issue requiring pain relief medication, into criminals.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    A more sane approach centered around harm reduction would be a means to help people in those situations

    I’m pretty sure they’re saying the same thing. They’re just saying those means to help people need to be in place before you allow dangerously addictive substances to flow freely in the marketplace.

    I do not want illegal drugs, but I also want universal healthcare so that people who do get addicted get the treatment they need.

    Also, plenty of healthy, sane, rich people become addicts, so I don’t think your claim about what leads people to drug use is necessarily true.

    DragonAce ,

    Depression exists regardless of income. It can be caused by genetics, childhood trauma, shitty parents, etc… So that still falls under mental health issues.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Then I guess we should have a robust mental healthcare system in place before we decriminalize heroin and meth…

    smooth_tea ,

    I’m pretty sure they’re saying the same thing.

    Not in my opinion, because the underlying implication is that a mere change in the legality of a substance would lead to a major rise in its use that we need to counter with an improvement of social care. I’m of the opinion that we would be in a far better situation if we had never intercepted a single gram of any illegal substance or put a single person behind bars for their drug use. Of course we need better social care, but a reduction of repressive approaches to counter the drug issues alone would improve the situation and we don’t need to wait for “socialism” to take off in the US.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Portugal decriminalized all drugs. It’s not as clear-cut as you think. I am in favor of decriminalization, but to pretend there will be no major fallout is not in line with what happened there.

    A newly released national survey suggests the percent of adults who have used illicit drugs increased to 12.8 percent in 2022, up from 7.8 in 2001, though still below European averages. Portugal’s prevalence of high-risk opioid use is higher than Germany’s, but lower than that of France and Italy. But even proponents of decriminalization here admit that something is going wrong.

    Overdose rates have hit 12-year highs and almost doubled in Lisbon from 2019 to 2023. Sewage samples in Lisbon show cocaine and ketamine detection is now among the highest in Europe, with elevated weekend rates suggesting party-heavy usage. In Porto, the collection of drug-related debris from city streets surged 24 percent between 2021 and 2022, with this year on track to far outpace the last. Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022, a rise police blame partly on increased drug use.

    washingtonpost.com/…/portugal-drugs-decriminaliza…

    smooth_tea ,

    It’s easy to fall in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy though. The article goes on insinuating cause and effect, and tucks away the most likely reason at the end of the article, cutting funds of drug prevention to a quarter of what it was.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    cutting funds of drug prevention to a quarter of what it was.

    So you mean we need a robust mental healthcare system if we decriminalize drugs? I agree.

    smooth_tea ,

    Of course, but if you cut funds to your social healthcare system towards drug prevention and then point to drug decriminalization as the cause of a worsening situation, you’re not being truthful. That’s why I mentioned the logical fallacy.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •